We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Use of trademark as part of corporate name causing confusion not permissible

A person who has adopted a mark dishonestly can neither claim prior user nor advance the defence of acquiescence. Granting permanent injunction against use of ‘HELAMIN” by the defendant who used the word as part of his corporate name and trade name though he had stopped using it as a trademark for goods, the Delhi High Court agreed with the plaintiff-proprietor that there can be only one source of goods associated with a mark. In the instant case the defendant had stopped using the trademark and sold goods under the mark ‘INDIAMIN’ but continued to use ‘HELAMIN’ as part of its corporate name causing actual confusion. The defendant argued that in view of the former relationship of agency, it had contributed to the reputation of the mark and also that the plaintiff did not suffer any damage. However, the Court relying on various case laws ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction. [Helamin Technology Holding SA v. Harbansh Rai & Ors, I.A. No. 10720/2012, Delhi High Court decision dated 9-12-2015]

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

"The newsfeeds are extremely relevant. They address both legislative and judicial updates and offer an experienced, thoughtful analysis of directions or trends. The articles are all extremely well done and provide a practical viewpoint, not just an academic one. Most topics have at least 3-5 articles from various law firms, so there's an opportunity to read different perspectives and analyses."